A Brief Word About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I have never been a fan of Bibi Netanyahu. He has always struck me as a smarmy used car salesman who isn't as smart as he's made out to be. And I've never been a fan of Israel's expansionist behavior. Israel occupies a precarious place in the world's psyche. Few outside of loons like Ahmadinejad argue with the existence of Israel on the basis of the Holocaust and the prior couple thousand years of Jewish history. But most of that bad experience came about as a result of European Christians not middle eastern Arabs. Before the 20th century, Arabs for the most part, and certainly relative to Europeans, coexisted with Jews whenever they have been in proximity with each other. Look at the years of Muslim occupation of Spain before 1492 for evidence of that fact. The common refrain "you can't just wish away 2000 years of Arab-Jewish conflict" is an absolute fallacy.

The result of European history towards the Jews, ending with the Holocaust, finally shamed the British to take a piece of its share of the moribund Ottoman Empire and cede it to the State of Israel in 1948. But that piece of land had been lobbied for by European Jews since the last quarter of the 1800s, not just the few years after WWII. And rather than the small sliver of a country that is officially Israel today, the first Zionists wanted twice that amount of land, specifically everything that is argued over today: Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights. The reasons for that territorial desire was simple and practical: access to the sea, defensive protection, but most importantly, because the West Bank contains the Jordan Valley -- the water. The region is a desert and the Israelis have made the desert bloom, but they did so by sucking out all the available water from underground. And without direct access to the Jordan Valley, it's gonna dry up in the near future. Hence the need for the land, not because God said so, but because to continue to exist and support the population, it needs water.

The other factor to consider is that because of how it was formed, Israel is essentially a European colony and brought with it all the usual problems and attitudes of a European colonial culture, much of which is not typical of Jewish culture. Most significantly racism, and a virus-like need to gobble any and all natural resources it can get.

Israel has two options: accommodate the reality of a native population, but one that greatly outstrips it in terms of birthrate, thereby requiring permanent second class status for Arabs if Israel is to retain a Jewish identity; or have a two state solution which prevents access to the water Israel needs to maintain it's literal ability to sustain itself. Both solutions presume the natives will finally recognize Israel as a fait accompli and stop trying to simply eliminate the place as a country and retake the territory.

Because of money and military hardware, the US is the only reason Israel continues to exist. In an earlier era it would have been treated as a vassal state but that isn't how we do things today. The result is that Bibi can get away with the insult perpetrated last week on VP Biden by announcing a huge construction project in E. Jerusalem in the midst of a so-called building "freeze".

But the Palestinians, never ones to ignore an opportunity to screw up a chance to get the world on its side, is responding by possibly beginning another Intifada. Between the Palestinians and Israelis, it would be hard to find two better matched peoples capable of legitimately playing the victim card.

The trouble now is that since the US has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, any action against Israel could easily bleed into violence against American military targets in the region. So instead of getting the relatively moderate leaders of the Palestinian west bank to the negotiating table, the hardliners of Hamas will end up taking the day again and it will remain War All The Time in the middle east, but in a much more threatening manner for the US as opposed to just "US interests." Hamas are terrorists with a tinge of legitimacy, and Bibi is no one I would ever let sell me a car.

GOP: The Party of Nero

For over 30 years we have watched while a political party took the reigns of power by declaring the best government is that government which governs least. The notion took hold by virtue of twisted mythologies, blatant lies, interminable fear-mongering, subtle race-baiting, adolescent machismo, cowboy inanities, bad history, bad economic theory, bad corporate structure, bad foreign policy, bad math, bad science, no respect for the labor that actually built this country, stalinist tactics, purism in religion, absurd utopian conceptions of human behavior, suspicion of excellence, rejection of debate, refusal to compromise, and dividing to conquer. For over 30 years they have refused to address a staggering array of problems which, in their time, could have been handled had they engaged the drive and ingenuity of the American people. But they failed to do so because they were leaders who failed to lead all the while proclaiming how well they were leading. For over 30 years they had plenty they could have done but instead did nothing. All the while, they gave it away with a smirk as if this nation was some monstrous garage sale disgorging trinkets to the poor neighbors. They did not govern as that which governs least. They have governed as that which does not govern at all. For over 30 years the GOP has not been simply The Party of No. They have been The Party of Nero, fiddling away while our country turned to shit before our very eyes.

Preview of the Healthcare Summit

Early signs regarding how the impending Healthcare Summit between Barry and the Repubes don't suggest that there will be a meeting of the minds. The jobs bill notwithstanding, I suspect we'll be witness to the final bell on bipartisanship. And I think, when it happens, it will look something like this: Summit Preview

Eric Cantor Wastes His Breath

Apparently a serious move is afoot to get a health care bill through congress which will include a public option and be passed via reconciliation, therefore requiring only 50 votes (plus the VP as tie breaker). Don't get me wrong, activists on the left have argued for such an approach since the first floundering last summer. Now the dems in the senate who are realizing that failure on the issue may be worse than the compromised stasis they've already bumbled into are waking up to that fact. And Barry's people in the White House too, have gotten the cojones bug and may be actually crafting some legislation to promote. Such a series of moves will get the job done and do so in a much more progressive manner than what was already coming out of the process.

Republican boy wonder Eric Cantor has declared that such action by the administration and congressional democrats will assure the end of any attempts at bipartisanship. Who is this guy threatening? The repubes have done nothing in a bipartisan manner since January 20, 2009. Before they can say there is no chance, they have to show there is one. I'm kind of at a loss as to why anyone pays attention to such blather at this point other than for the simple manner of showing the completely "opposite" point of view on an issue. This is to be distinguished from an "opposing" point of view, which suggests there is content in the view.

The election of '08 was a resounding statement to do things differently. Barry, being a lawyer and politician at heart, is interested in process. That explains his focus on bipartisanship because it suggests a fair airing of all views and inclusion in some form for all of them. But the people, being bottom line oriented, are interested in results. The dems in congress, who knows what they're interested in at this point? But it's sounding like maybe, just maybe they're all starting to wake up to the reality that they don't have a loyal opposition to deal with.

Since John Tower's and Robert Bork's smearings by the dems in the 80s, the Gingrich revolution in '94, the ongoing evisceration of Clinton in the late 90s, and the jackboot discipline of Rove in the aughts, the US congress has become less and less responsive to the needs of American society and ever more insular. It may be a fully broken institution which has no institutional knowledge of how to accomplish important functions anymore. This, more than any other, may be the most dangerous reality to develop in American politics since the Civil War. The devastation wrought by that conflict required a century of healing with scars that remain still. I fear the consequences of further rancor of the sort. We can be a mighty nasty people when unglued. And Elmer is skurrying for the hills by my view.

Iran: What Are We Waiting For?

No don't worry, I'm not about to go all Cheney on you. Military action in Iran by us or by Israel is not possible. The targets are too deep, too numerous, and probably not all identified. We can't accomplish our goals that way, and we never could have even had we done something back when Cheney was calling the shots. All that we would do is ruin the ongoing opposition movement which, though certainly not a liberal one by western standards, certainly would be by Iranian standards.

The so-called "crippling sanctions" against the regime and particularly geared towards the Revolutionary Guard should be engaged immediately without further delay. No muslim state in the region would object since the Shiite Persian regime stands as a threat to all Sunni Arab regimes to the west. Afghanistan and Pakistan are largely irrelevant. Only China and Russia could object but doing so would simply expose them for the rogue nations that they may be trying to avoid becoming (well China anyway, the Russians don't generally care much as they have their own oil but just like sticking it to the west and the US in particular for not somehow preventing the Russian slide into a crime ridden alcoholic haze in the post-cold war era).

Strange bedfellows could be made from such an arrangement, especially if it succeeds enough to instigate some manner of Iranian lashing out before they actually manage to enrich enough useful weapons grade uranium. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Syria anyone?

What do we have to lose by trying???

The Myth of Liberal Big Gov Love

In a corollary to the critique of the Supreme Court's recent decision that corporate campaign cash is unfettered free speech, I pose a notion for all which I hope will utterly reorient everyone's attitude towards left of center thinking. America was born of a fairly uniform belief that government cannot be trusted for much and should therefore remain as limited and unintrusive as manageable. For the most part, NONE OF US ARE BIG FANS OF GOVERNMENT OF ANY SIZE. I believe Americans tend to be anarchists at heart, wanting to abide by our own rules confident in the notion that we are decent enough folks in general to know how to treat each other with at least a minimum amount of respect and desire to get what we need without stepping on the needs of others. Please note that this is how we see ourselves individually, not that we actually behave that way all of the time. But I digress.

Folks on the right love to tar us left-of-centers as having big-government desires as solutions to all problems, real or perceived until, inevitably, the word socialist gets thrown around. Sorry but it just isn't so. The only reason there is any such thing as big government in this country in the first place is because of the threat to liberty posed by big business. Without big business, there would be little need for unions, minimum wage laws, workplace condition laws, immigration laws, child labor laws, environmental regulations, mandated product quality standards, and all of the bureaucracies which came into existence in order to enforce all of these rules.

Why is that? Very simply, if businesses stay small, there are many more of them available to serve the public and as a result to compete for the public's attention and affection. They have to compete! Big businesses don't compete much. They eat the competition, then can abuse their employees and their clientèle in order to simply produce their product as cheaply and efficiently as possible in the singular pursuit of profits and absolutely nothing more. Eventually, as happened in this country starting in the 1880s, something has to be done about them.

When businesses get too big they can begin to prey on the public. They become a nuisance or worse, which must be controlled. But at that point no individuals can do anything about their power. A giant corporation is a giant collective source of capital (money), power, and influence. The only institution, which at least theoretically has the ability to push back against such power is a government powerful enough to enforce rules against such entities. This is how government got so big in this country and this is why liberals get tarred with it as an epithet -- because before the liberals promoted big government, the "conservatives" but really just the repubelican party, bought in fully to the seduction of big business and the money that came along with it.

If big businesses are exceedingly difficult to create and maintain, there will be no need for a big government to protect the public against them. By necessity (or actually the lack of necessity) the big government will begin to shrink. The phrase "too big to fail" should be a concept which exists only in the lecture halls at university business schools and economics departments as nothing more than an efficiency exercise.

If you love capitalism like I do, then hate big business. Big business is the destructive force of capitalism like cancer is a destructive force of the body. It is part of the body gone haywire and left uncontrolled will destroy that which keeps it alive. A body without cancer needs no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. A body politic without enormous businesses needs no big government to oversee and regulate it.

End corporate personhood, break up all big businesses, encourage real competition by making a playing field where there are actually different businesses to compete with each other, not glop together for singular aims. Do that, and the money will be in the hands of the people, not in the pockets of oligarchs and plutocrats. True democracy, true liberty.

Put Up Or Shut Up

A long long time ago it seems, I suspected my friend Barry of being the best poker player I'd ever seen. If tomorrow night's State of the Union isn't the ultimate call on legislative branch, then we may be witnessing the resurrection of Herbert Hoover. It is what the repubes have been calling for and surely now that they would be getting they will refuse to claim ownership just as they say Barry has refused to claim ownership of the mess he inherited and by their standards, has contributed to in grand fashion. On the other hand, this could also be a mighty dare to the Democrats who have failed utterly to congeal around their savior for the benefit of their president, their party, their jobs, and certainly their constituents. They have had all the power they've needed to enact the measures promised by candidate Barry but they squandered it utterly. They still have the power since as has been observed, the GOP never needed 60 senate votes to do anything.

I struggle with the historical reality that 1st year presidents don't generally do very well but the inability of Barry and his team to get the wheels of government moving in a generally forward direction is disheartening. It's not uncommon for initial cabinet members to be swept away. It may be a bit early for that by past standards but, starting with Geithner, it could be time for such a cleansing.

As a politics junkie I usually look forward to the State of the Union address. I suffer through the anchors and their crowing at the pomp and majesty because I truly don't give a rip about that crap. I want some content. Right now I'm more concerned than ever and I more or less will be happy if at the end of Barry's portion I'm just not disgusted. My confidence is waning. How long will it be in the speech lead-ups until a bunch of pundits declare in unison "he needs to hit a home run/score a touchdown (hail mary pass)"?

As someone who was pivotal in getting this blog off the ground often said to me, "UGH!"

Money Talks

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution boys and girls.

I'll need to keep this brief because it's late and I have other things to do.

Freedom of speech in this country has been defined to relate most significantly to political speech by persons. Since we are a representative republic, supporting a political candidate or officeholder is a substitute for one's own political speech. Therefore, donating money to a politician of one's choice has also been determined to be protected speech. In short, cash equals speech. At least one pundit criticized that conclusion by suggesting that by that logic, bribery should then be protected. But that is patently absurd because bribery is direct corruption which takes place out of sight behind closed doors. Like lobbying.

You got something to say, someone to support, someone you want to give money to? Fine thing Mr. America, declare it to the whole country out loud and in round figures.

Here's the thing though - long ago, for reasons that are not entirely consistent with the usual methods of interpreting law, corporations were defined as persons under the constitution. Ever since politicians have attempted to control or limit how and how much cash is used by corporations in the political process. Today the Supreme Court declared all such methods invalid. In other words, as the 1st amendment states, NO MEANS NO. Congress can't limit what a person (in this case, a corporate person) spends to support a candidate for political office.

This sounds horrible and commentators are already decrying the latest smash to the foundations of the country. They may be right about the end result, but in typical fashion, for the wrong reasons. This decision, under current constitutional interpretations, is completely correct. The problem isn't that corps are now allowed to throw millions (maybe for Exxon, billions) into a political campaign. The problem is that they can do so because they are considered persons under the law. Corporations are therefore entitled to all rights of persons. Isn't that absurd??

If you want the stranglehold of big business and the corrupting effects it has on governance to go away, don't whine about this particular decision - it is actually good that this situation is not parsed out as an exception which will only muddy the legal waters when some other little distinction needs to be made - focus on the cause of the problem. The cause here is that something not alive, yet which may theoretically never die, has all the rights and privileges of the living.

PERSONHOOD IS FOR PEOPLE!!!
END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD!!!

The Silver Lining

Since the 60 vote Democratic supermajority was tossed into the grave with Ted Kennedy last night, it has looked more than a little frustrating for us left of center folk. But now that the ire has ebbed a bit (or at least I have let mine so flow), I have had a few moments of mental time to consider how the new situation can still work to the benefit of the Left. And what it seems to me at the moment is that the loss in Massachusetts last night may actually work to the benefit of the left rather than hurt it.

Simply stated, the Dems can now act like a party of the left instead of kowtowing to faux dems like Lieberman and Ben Nelson (for the record, I understand why Nelson behaves as he does, coming from Nebraska, but Lieberman still has no excuse other than to eternally torment the party that nearly made him Vice President but for his ineffective campaigning).

The 7 or 8 moderates in the party can now be treated like any wavering mods that were in the GOP the past 15 years. Either they join in or get hammered in primaries next election cycle. And Lieberman can finally be shitcanned altogether as he ought to be.

Supermajorities have been rather uncommon in American political history and the system was designed for it to be difficult. Nevertheless, things get done. While the dems had 60, nothing got done. Maybe this loss is a blessing in disguise. Let's hope so.

Did Obama Really Win the Presidency?

Seriously folks, if the dems in Massachusetts couldn't hold Ted Kennedy's seat, how did they manage to win the White House or their still significant majorities in both houses of Congress. It seems we're back to the way things were before Barry won in '08.

The question now is whether the dems in Congress have the balls to get healthcare passed in any of the remaining methods available to them without 60 votes once Sen. Brown (R-Mass) is sworn in. Personally I like the one that has them get the compromise done and voted on before he has to be sworn in according to Massachusetts law. I believe that brings it to about Jan. 29.

You got 10 days folks. Can you do it?

Jon Stewart observed that the Repubelicans never had 60 in the Senate yet they did absolutely anything they wanted. Why??